The Holy Spirit and Hermeneutics

Preface

This brief essay is a preliminary attempt at articulating the role of the
Holy Spirit in relation to the interpretation of Scripture. Criticisms
and interactions are invited. (It must be kept in mind, however, that I
am addressing evangelicals. Those with a different theological grid will,
I am sure, find so much to criticize in this essay that they wonít know
where to begin!)

Introduction

The relation of the Holy Spirit to hermeneutics is a hot issue among evangelicals
today. On a popular level, there has always been a large misunderstanding
about the Spiritís role. Many Christians believe that if they simply pray,
the Holy Spirit will give them the proper interpretation. Others
are not so concerned about the interpretation of the text; rather, they
are happy to see an idiosyncratic meaning of the text ("What this verse
means to me. . ."). All of this is the doctrine of the priesthood
of the believers run amok. Although each of us is responsible before God
for understanding and applying the message of the Bible, this in no way
means that a pooling of ignorance or a merely pietistic approach to Scripture
meets the divine mandate.

Surprisingly, there is also an increasingly large gap between conservative
scholars. James De Young, for example, recently said that "when it comes
to scholarly methods of interpreting the Bible, the Holy Spirit may as
well be dead." 1
Why is there such a polarity? At least four reasons: (1) Because of the
shift toward postmodernism (and thus, from rationalism and logic to experience
as the norm for interpretation). (2) Because of the unwillingness to do
hard study, as David F. Wells has expressed it. (3) Because evangelical
thought has indeed imbibed too much in rationalism. (4) Because evangelicalism
is moving toward postconservatism in which tolerance rather than conviction
is the proper stance on many issues.

Some Key Issues

1. Any evangelical view of the Holy Spiritís role in interpretation must
be based on the text. The fundamental argument over this issue must wrestle
with the major passages.

2. Many non-evangelical (even, non-Christian) commentaries are among
the best available in terms of lucidity, insight, and understanding of
the biblical text. Conversely, many evangelical commentaries are among
the worst available. Any view of the relation of the Holy Spirit to hermeneutics
must wrestle honestly with this situation. The point for our purposes is
this: understanding can take place even among non-believers.

3. It is important to articulate oneís position in such a way that we
recognize the unique revelatory status of Scripture. That is, we must not
say that the Spirit adds more revelation to the written Word. This
denies the sufficiency of Scripture. Further, it renders such an interpretation
non-falsifiable because then the Spiritís added revelation is accessible
to me only through you. Finally, it comes perilously close to Barthís
neoorthodox position that the Bible becomes the Word of God in oneís
experience. One can easily see how, in such a scenario, the Bible can be
employed like the proverbial wax nose to mean anything the molder wants
it to mean.

Some Key Passages

A key passage for a theological issue is known as a crux interpretum.
Such a text is a hinge on which oneís views depend. Chief among the hermeneutical
cruces
are two passages: 1 Cor 2:12-14 and 1 John 2:20, 27. I will not take time
to wrestle with these in a detailed exegesis. But I will highlight the
major problems and discuss them briefly.

Translations vary considerably, especially in v 13. But for purposes
of brevity, the following may be regarded as representative:

RSV: (12) Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but
the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed
on us by God. (13) And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom
but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess
the Spirit. (14) The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the
Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand
them because they are spiritually discerned.

NIV: (12) We have not received the spirit of the world but the
Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given
us. (13) This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom
but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual
words. (14) The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that
come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot
understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

ASV: (12) But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the
spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely
given to us of God. (13) Which things also we speak, not in words which
manís wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual
things with spiritual words. (14) Now the natural man receiveth not the
things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he
cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.

The key issues here are: (1) the meaning of the last clause of v 13
(viz., the referent of the two adjectives and the lexical force in this
context of the participle); (2) in v 14: (a) in what sense the natural
person does not accept the things of the Spirit, and (b) whether the two
clauses are parallel or appositional.

Unpacking these issues a bit, here are some tentative conclusions:

(1) verse 13 means either that Paul and his associates interpret spiritual
things to spiritual people or something else (there are a variety
of options here). Nevertheless, one key point to be made is this: one must
not use such an oblique text as the fundamental prooftext of any view.
Seek clearer passages to prove your point. (In the least, we can say that
the NIV translation is probably incorrect based on the lexical field suggested
in BAGD.)

(2) In verse 14: (a) the natural person does not welcome spiritual
truths. The verb devcomai fundamentally has this
notion. It is more explicitly tied to the volition than is lambavnw.
Thus, the natural person has a volitional problem when it comes to the
gospel.

(b) If the two clauses are appositional, then the natural person does
not welcome spiritual truths and because of this he cannot fully grasp
them. If the two clauses are parallel, then Paul is presenting two distinguishable
but separate truths here: the natural person has a problem with volition
and
the natural person has a problem with comprehension. The simple
kaiv
that joins the two clauses would normally be unconvincing as an indicator
of apposition (although an epexegetical
kaiv
is, opf course, possible): prima facie, the two clauses of v 14
look to be parallel points. However, on behalf of apposition is the fact
that Semitic parallels (such as synonymous or synthetic parallels) were
often employed even in the New Testament; if Paul is doing so here, he
may well have the notion of apposition in mind. The problem with this view
is that ginwvskw is a rather vanilla term for
"know" (in spite of the protestations of some). In other words, if this
clause is in some sense appositional to the preceding, we might have expected
another word, such as oi\da. The presence of
ginwvskw seems to indicate that two separate
notions are involved: the natural person does not properly understand revelation
because of sinís effects on his will and on his mind. This
latter category involves the noetic effects of sin. Such a theological
category is consistent with Paul and the NT. Sin affects our wills, emotions,
and our minds.

In sum, 1 Cor 2:12-14 is saying that the non-Christian will not accept
spiritual truths and cannot understand them. These are two distinct
though related concepts. Non-Christians do indeed plainly understand the
gospel message at times; further, unbelieving exegetes do often offer valuable
insights into the text. That is not disputed here. Paulís point seems to
be that the depths of Godís ways and Godís wisdom cannot even be touched
by non-believers. There is a level to which they cannot attain.

The key elements in these verses are: (1) v 20: "you all know it" (i.e.,
you all know that you have an anointing from the Holy One); (2) v 27: (a)
"you have no need that anyone should teach you" and (b) "his anointing
teaches you concerning all things."

A few comments are in order: (1) This passage illustratest three of
the most important rules of exegesis: CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. Only if
we ignore the context can we construe a meaning that universalizes this
text. (2) Verse 20 indicates that what the believers know by personal experience
(oi\da) is their anointing. I take it that this
is the inner witness of the Spirit: they recognize that the Spirit ministers
to them in an immediate, non-discursive role, convincing them of their
relationship to God (cf. Rom 8:16). (3) If the author is saying that no
one should teach them anything at all, why then does he teach them in this
letter? Surely, the immediate context suggests something different. (4)
The anointing that teaches them about all things also needs to be contextualized.
The author is contrasting these believers with heretics who have removed
themselves from the believing community (cf. 2:19). The author stresses
what
these believers know: that Christ has come in the flesh, that he will
come again, and that they are the children of God. He also stresses
how
these believers discern the essential truths of the faith: they
have the Spirit of God. He is convinced that they will stay true to the
faith-that they will abide (mevnw)- because "greater
is he that is in you than he that is in the world" (4:4).

Thus, on the one hand, 1 John 2:20, 27 does not indicate that the Holy
Spirit circumvents the interpretive process. On the other hand, the Holy
Spirit does work on our hearts, convincing us of the essential truths of
the faith. One who does not have the Spirit of God cannot believe such
truths and hence cannot know them experientially.

The Relation of the
Holy Spirit to Interpretation

My preliminary conclusions are offered here. I believe that there are at
least seven or eight ways in which the Holy Spirit relates to interpretation.
Many of these are overlapping; some folks might want to organize them differently.

1. The Spiritís work is primarily in the realm of conviction
rather than cognition. At the same time, even this area needs some nuancing.
Oneís convictions do impact oneís perceptions. Thus, it seems that the
Holy Spirit may be said to aid our interpretation, even if his role were
limited to that of conviction. How?

2. Experiential knowledge has a boomerang effect back on intellectual
comprehension. In several areas, to the extent that an interpreter has
experienced what is being proposed, he/she can comprehend it. For example,
if someone has never been in love, he/she has a more difficult time understanding
fully all that romance involves.

3. To the extent that one is disobedient to Scripture, yet respects
its authority (at least with his lips), he will twist the text. Cf. 2 Pet
3:15-16. Conversely, to the extent that one is obedient to Scripture,
he/she will be in a better position to understand it and deal with it honestly.

4. Sympathy to the biblical author opens up understanding. The
most sympathetic exegete is the believer. An unsympathetic interpreter
often misunderstands because of the lack of desire to understand. This
can easily be illustrated in the political arena. Those who are vigorous
about the rightness of a particular party tend to villify all that is in
the other party. Even among Christians there is often a "canon within a
canon." That is, some books/authors are respected more highly than others.
To the extent that we do not cultivate sympathy for all the authors of
Scripture we close ourselves to the full impact of their message.

At the same time, if one is sympathetic to the divine author while ignoring
the human author, several tensions in Scripture will be overlooked. Thus,
ironically, when inerrancy is paraded along docetic bibliological lines
(as it often is today), oneís interpretation is often more a defense of
a supposed harmony than an honest investigation into an authorís meaning.
Progressive revelation gets flattened out; human authors become mere stenographers.
Tensions go unobserved, only to be raised as flat-out contradictions by
those who do not have much sympathy for Scripture, leaving evangelicals
in a position of having to do damage control. Recognizing the tensions
in Scripture as well as the progress of revelation-and that the Bible is
both
a divine book and a very human book-avoids such problems.

5. Those who embrace in principle a belief in the supernatural
are in a better position to interpret both miracles and prophecy. These
elements of Scripture simply cannot be treated adequately by non-believers.
This goes beyond mere sympathy to world-view. If one steadfastly disbelieves
that prophecy can take place, then he will have to explain the prophetic
portions of Scripture as other than real predictions. They will either
be discredited as unfulfilled or else treated as vaticinium ex eventu
(or prophecy after the fact). Miracles also need to be rewritten so as
to be demythologized. C. S. Lewisí critique several decades ago still stands
as a valid indictment against this treatment of Scripture: to treat Scripture-especially
the NT-as full of fables presupposes a timeline that is demonstrably untrue.
The gap from the time of the events to the telling of the tale is simply
too short, finding no parallels in any purportedly historical literature.
Lewis concludes that those who call the NT fable-filled have never really
studied fables. Or as Vincent Taylor, the British NT scholar, noted, to
regard the NT documents as full of myth presupposes that all the eyewitnesses
must have vanished almost immediately after the events took place. In short,
when it comes to miracles and prophecy, the believer is in a far better
position to understand the message. This bears some similarities with Jesusí
indictment of the Sadducees for not embracing the resurrection: "You do
not know the Scriptures or the power of God."

6. The inner witness of the Spirit (cf. Rom 8:16; 1 John 2:20,
27, etc.) is an important factor in both conviction and perception of the
central truths of Scripture. From my tentative study, I would say that
the Spiritís witness is an immediate, non-discursive, supra-rational testimony
of the truth of the central tenets of the faith. The Spirit convinces us
of their truth in an extra-exegetical way. What exactly does he convince
us of? Some of these things are: (1) our filial relationship to God; (2)
the bodily resurrection of Christ; (3) the humanity of Christ; (4) the
bodily return of Christ; (5) the deity of Christ; (6) the nature of salvation
as a free gift from God. The Spiritís testimony may, indeed, be broader
than this. But how broad? It is doubtful that the Spirit bears witness
to the time it took for God to create the universe, or whether dispensationalism
or covenant theology is the better system, or whether inerrancy is true.
I doubt that he bears witness to what form of church government is to be
preferred, the role of women in leadership, or how to define spiritual
gifts. There are so many matters in Scripture that are left for us to examine
using the best of our rational and empirical resources! But this does not
mean that we cannot come to some fairly firm conclusions about them. It
does mean, however, that these are issues that are more peripheral than
others regarding salvation. I do believe that these Ďnegotiablesí are important
areas of investigation. Proper conclusions about many of them (but not
all) are necessary for the health of the Church, but are not essential
for the life of the Church.

Three final comments on the inner witness of the Spirit: (1) That I
have even offered a preliminary taxonomy of doctrine may be startling to
some. The alternative is to view all doctrine as of equal importance. But
this is problematic historically, exegetically, and spiritually. Such a
Ďdominoí view of doctrine results either in unsupportable dogma coupled
with smug arrogance, or a crashing of virtually all oneís doctrinal beliefs
(because if one falls down, they all fall down). (2) That several areas
are apparently not witnessed to by the Spirit does not mean that they are
not important. Rather, it means both that the less central they are to
salvation and to the health of the Church, the more freedom and tolerance
we should allow to those who disagree with us. This requires a measure
of humility in such matters-even on issues that are currently hot topics
(such as spiritual gifts and the role of women in leadership). Part of
the real challenge of grappling with these issues is to determine how much
the health of the Church is impacted by our exegetical decisions. But the
presentation of oneís findings must always be accompanied by a spirit of
charity. Be careful not to elevate your own non-central beliefs to the
first level of conviction that is reserved for those truths which the Spirit
bears witness to. (3) The inner witness of the Spirit can be suppressed
to a degree. One must keep a warm heart toward God (through prayer, worship,
community, humility, obedience, etc.) and a nuanced vigilance over the
preciousness of these central truths (through study of both the Scriptures
and the history of the Church), in order to cultivate the apprehension
of the Spiritís inner witness.

7. General illumination is also an area in which the Spirit helps
our
interpretation. By general illumination I mean his work in helping
us to understand any area of life and the world. This needs more
exploration. In general, I believe that the Spirit helps us in clearing
our minds as we wrestle with many things-from paying taxes, to finding
car keys, to taking exams. Why would we exclude Scripture from this matrix?
Certainly Scripture is not outside the purview of the Spiritís general
aid offered to believers. Admittedly, this area of investigation needs
more work. My thoughts are merely preliminary.

8. Corporate and historical illumination: Via the whole body
of Christ-both in its current manifestation and throughout history-believers
have come to understand Godís will and Godís Word better. We dare not elevate
either consensus opinion or tradition to the status of infallible authority
however! But such areas ought not to be relegated to disdain either. After
all, the Holy Spirit did not start with you when he began teaching the
Church; heís been in this business for a few centuries.

* * *

I conclude this paper with three caveats:

1. Donít view the limits of exegesis as the interpretation of a text.
Ultimately, the goal of exegesis is not interpretation, but transformation.

2. Donít assume that because you pray, are spiritual, etc., that your
interpretation is right. Laziness in the study is no excuse for a poor
interpretation. Further, even if you are not lazy, an inaccessible interpretation
must still be judged an improbable interpretation.

3. Donít isolate your study from your worship. Those in seminary especially
should take very seriously the mandate for those who would be ministers
of the Word: Study! Exposition that is not borne of hard study produces
a warm fuzzy feeling that lacks substance. It is candy for the soul. At
the same time, if your study is merely a cognitive exercise rather than
a part of the worship you offer up to God, it will have a cold and heartless
effect. Eating a rock may be a way to get your daily minerals, but who
would want to take their minerals in such an indigestable form?

To download this study (hermHS.zip) in Microsoft Word
format, go to the FTP Site located on the Biblical Studies home page.